Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

A simple comment.
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:As we seem to be going down the road of a C1 , C2 , C3 fleet......
The C1,C2,C3 strategy seems like a throughly sensible and cost effective way forward. Is current planning heading in this direction?

I think we are currently on course for a C1,C3 setup as corvettes, long range or otherwise are not really C2 combatants. I just don't see Leander as C2 material, Arrowhead 140 would have been more suitable for a C2 designation.
Agree Leander is much "lower" than first imagined as C2. Actually, it is similar to the old version of C3. In the old days, Venator 90 had 16 CAMM, a gun, and even a hangar for UAV. Nowadays, C3 is more Venari 85 like, which I think is much much better than Venator 90. (CAMM on C3 is a waste of money, man-power, and degrading sea-going days = less "capable", I think).

On the Arrowhead 140, I actually see (saw) zero smell of C2. Just the hull is large, out look is like a "frigate". But C2 ship simply cannot be 250M GBP unit cost. Cost dictates the capability, not the out look. If Arrowhead 140 is to be 250M GBP unit cost, it is just "a large Floreal", not a proper frigate = not C2.

C2 is a ~400M GBP unit cost ship (=proper light frigate). It was Venator 110, which is almost dead, sadly.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

And this is why I said the C2 or tier 2 frigate should and could be funded at 450 to 500 million pounds or half the cost of a tier 1 ship and using proven technology to stay on budget making it a real tier 2 escort that for me would look like

135 meters long 19 meters beam
ASW centred with TAS
crew of 110 to 120 + 50 troops short term deployment
BAE - CMS and Artisan radar
1 x 5" gun without auto feeder
4 x 30mm gun
16 cell VLS to allow 32 CAMM plus other weapons
Full width hangar for up to 2 Merlin's

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote:


//Zumwalt stability problems and cost.//

.
Your lengthy quote in no way supports the idiot claim that the Zumwalts were cancelled because of stability problems.

Admin,

Ron5 name calling again, now I'm an 'IDIOT'. Its very, very regrettable but Ron5 has a history, so requesting either appropriate sanction taken under site rules or I'm allowed to reply in same vein to express view on his intelligence, not high and can think of a few choice adjectives :) , though understand not good for site.
Sorry for not being clear. Where I live an "idiot claim" is used instead of the proper English "idiotic claim". It wasn't you that made it anyway.
Then why did you attach comment to my post in reply, to me it just comes across as obnoxious.

I never claimed Zumwalt was cancelled due to its stability concerns though I'm sure it had impact, it was designed as a dedicated NGFS destroyer with its BAE Inc 155mm AGS and VLS for Tomahawks (no AA Standard Missiles have ever been fitted) to replace the Iowa class battleships to give the Marines fire support on landings. USN were never enthusiastic, thats taking an upbeat view of their attitude, on the mission and tried to pull the plug even before first ship in build when realisation hit that the tumblehome design was impracticable/costly for use in the AAW/BMD role to support the envisaged for the CCG(X).
CRS report quoted" A July 2, 2008, letter from John Young, the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition executive (the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) to Representative Gene Taylor, the chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, stated: “I agree that the Navy’s preliminary design analysis for the next generation cruiser indicates that, for the most capable radar suites under consideration [for the CG(X)], the DDG-1000 [Zumwalt hull design] cannot support the radar.”

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The joint prgrm with the French is, as far as I know, still running. The difference in that they have already sketched out (in the Military Law) what they will order and have in water by 2025.
AFAIK that is correct. Both the MN and RN have taken delivery of their first systems, I believe.
shark bait wrote:The RN developed an autonomous helicopter, but it never made it to sea, presumably because of lack of funds, and has since turned into vaporwave due to lack of funds.
As of July, Leonardo were actively developing both the Hero and Solo (which has been landed on an Italian Navy ship - the RN are supposed to be performing shipboard trials of Hero this year, as well), with funding jointly provided by both the Italians and the UK. They plan for naval certification next year and will have systems at Ocean2020 (the Italians are the "host" navy in the Med and the Swedes in the Baltic).
Poiuytrewq wrote:Don't disagree but are we putting the money into the right design?

Surely we must be more ambitious than a last generation design like Leander.
Which design are we putting it into? Once a decision is made, we'll be in a position to answer that. I personally, hope that the Arrowhead 140 re-appears in some guise or other, but I won't hold my breath
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

The Zumwalts have ballast tanks that are filled to compensate for fuel used in order for the waterline/RCS to remain constant. The tanks would also be used for counter flooding in case of battle damage. Counter flooding being a USN technique that goes back a long, long way. Ballast tanks and pumps are just about the cheapest things to add to a ship design. Steel & commodity items.

To be clear, the supposed Zumwalt stability issues are mostly an urban myth propagated by idiotic bloggers. I remember the blogsphere self proclaimed expert Stuart Slade declaring the ships would turn turtle and sink during their first encounter with a seaway. Based on the naval architecture 101 class he attended.

To be even clearer, the Zumwalts were cancelled after thee ships because of their horrific price tag for a niche role. Zippo to do with tumblehome.

Enough said on this.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Curiously, most wooden naval ships had a tumblehome hull. Totally different stresses and forces acting on them, I know and lots of ballast used, but they can't have been that unstable.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:Which design are we putting it into? Once a decision is made, we'll be in a position to answer that. I personally, hope that the Arrowhead 140 re-appears in some guise or other, but I won't hold my breath
I'm not sure the Arrowhead 140 is particularly adventurous. It's most daring feature is the claim it can be designed and built for 250m. At 7k tons, thats a lot of ship.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:I'm not sure the Arrowhead 140 is particularly adventurous. It's most daring feature is the claim it can be designed and built for 250m. At 7k tons, thats a lot of ship.
No, not adventurous, but the size gives flexibility for the future, with lots of space for additional organic and offboard systems. Wiki gives it a displacement of 6645t at full load. I've read elsewhere that it is around 5400t light, so that's approx. 1200t of flexibility
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:A simple comment.
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:As we seem to be going down the road of a C1 , C2 , C3 fleet......
The C1,C2,C3 strategy seems like a throughly sensible and cost effective way forward. Is current planning heading in this direction?

I think we are currently on course for a C1,C3 setup as corvettes, long range or otherwise are not really C2 combatants. I just don't see Leander as C2 material, Arrowhead 140 would have been more suitable for a C2 designation.
....the Arrowhead 140, I actually see (saw) zero smell of C2. Just the hull is large, out look is like a "frigate". But C2 ship simply cannot be 250M GBP unit cost. Cost dictates the capability, not the out look. If Arrowhead 140 is to be 250M GBP unit cost, it is just "a large Floreal", not a proper frigate = not C2.
No argument there. My point was that with an increased budget the Arrowhead 140 could have become a proper C2 or Tier2 Frigate. Lots of room for future growth.

Leander on the other hand will never be a C2 or Tier2 Frigate at 117mX14m regardless of how many weapons your strap onto it.

As an aside, Leander is quoted as requiring a crew of 120. This appears to be the prescibed number even if fitted with very few complex weapons systems in line with the T31 specification. As we have seen with the T26's and QE, quoted crew allocations are subject to change due to experience normally with an upward trend.

What if it turns out that in reality Leander requires 130-140 crew due to increased systems in the future. Is it big enough at 117m X 14m? As a large proportion of the superstructure is taken up with the Mission Bay and Hanger. Where is the margin for future growth?

Every other country in the world is building bigger and bigger vessels apart from the UK who is heading towards replacing 1990-2002 era Tier1 Frigates with much smaller long range Corvettes.

Hopefully a better option comes along....
C2 is a ~400M GBP unit cost ship (=proper light frigate). It was Venator 110, which is almost dead, sadly.
Agreed, but let's see the outcome of the MDP before we bury Venator.
Tempest414 wrote:And this is why I said the C2 or tier 2 frigate should and could be funded at 450 to 500 million pounds or half the cost of a tier 1 ship and using proven technology to stay on budget making it a real tier 2 escort that for me would look like

135 meters long 19 meters beam
ASW centred with TAS
crew of 110 to 120 + 50 troops short term deployment
BAE - CMS and Artisan radar
1 x 5" gun without auto feeder
4 x 30mm gun
16 cell VLS to allow 32 CAMM plus other weapons
Full width hangar for up to 2 Merlin's
In effect you have described a modernised and more highly automated Type 23 Frigate albeit 3m wider and a couple of metres longer with an Absalon hanger. The crucial element would be the acoustically optimised hull even if only the HMS is fitted and the TAS/VDS is FFBNW. I truly believe RN needs a vessel such as this and in decent numbers to complement the Type 26's.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

History does seem to be repeating itself with the Navy's frigates. Remember the T22, designed to be the best possible ASW platform but was too expensive to replace the Leanders and T-21 one for one so we got the T-23 to make up the numbers. If only we got as good a result with the T-31 as the T-26 cheaper cousin.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote:Which design are we putting it into? Once a decision is made, we'll be in a position to answer that. I personally, hope that the Arrowhead 140 re-appears in some guise or other, but I won't hold my breath
Agreed, it might not be Arrowhead 140 but I await Babcocks next entry with interest. I would like to see Team 31 take a gamble and come up with something innovative and ground breaking for the £250m price point.

Would a clever move for Babcock/BMT be to in effect unilaterally kick on with a stretched MHPC design that can be cost effectively scaled down for the MCMV option? By introducing a multipurpose design that meets the T31 requirements and provides a clear pathway for the next phase of the MHC programme would this give Team 31 the edge over CL/BAE with Leander?

The commonality would be a bonus.

Time will tell.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Careful Jake1992, we're in fantasy territory :thumbup:

My concern is the 130m X 20.8m would take a lot of horses to get to escort speed even with CODAD or CODELAD.

Much easier if the full 149.9m T26 hull was used. Without a change in direction there is no prospect of a Type 27 design based on the Type 26 hull even if a change to a simplified propulsion system and a reduced weapons load resulted in a genuine £500m option. The design costs involved would probably amount to a an entire T26. Pity because I think they would sell like hot cakes.

Let me work on the stretched MHPC option and I will illustrate what I mean.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

No fantasy ships here please.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Careful Jake1992, we're in fantasy territory :thumbup:

My concern is the 130m X 20.8m would take a lot of horses to get to escort speed even with CODAD or CODELAD.

Much easier if the full 149.9m T26 hull was used. Without a change in direction there is no prospect of a Type 27 design based on the Type 26 hull even if a change to a simplified propulsion system and a reduced weapons load resulted in a genuine £500m option. The design costs involved would probably amount to a an entire T26. Pity because I think they would sell like hot cakes.

Let me work on the stretched MHPC option and I will illustrate what I mean.
Is it fanticey though, people have be me descusing a genuin tier 2 escort for £500m odd.
I agree there is a consern about producing enough horses to get a desired speed for a short 21m beam, my thinking was more to keep as much comonality as possible with the T26 to keep design cost as low as possible while reduce spec and cost.

Would designing a 135m by 19m vessel with a ASW quiet hull for a tier 2 as described in above posts cost just as much as one based on a T26 hull

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote: I agree there is a consern about producing enough horses to get a desired speed for a short 21m beam, my thinking was more to keep as much comonality as possible with the T26 to keep design cost as low as possible while reduce spec and cost.
Using as much of the R&D that is already completed on the T26 would obviously be a good idea but the T31 programme is currently heading in a very different direction at this present time but who knows in the future.

One thing is for sure, if budgets weren't so tight Leander wouldn't be considered for a second as a replacement for the Type 23's.
Would designing a 135m by 19m vessel with a ASW quiet hull for a tier 2 as described in above posts cost just as much as one based on a T26 hull
Its the development procedure that could make it cost prohibitive. The money has already been spent on the T26 hull and it wasn't cheap.

For example if the cost to develop a £500m Tier2 Frigate from scratch had a design cost of £750m that in effect would make each hull £650m if 5 hulls were built. It's highly likely that a T26 lite could be built for a unit price of around £650m so what would be the point?

It only makes sense if a high number of hulls are required or the programme is backed by a clear export strategy.

The point I was making originally was if RN doesn't like Arrowhead 120 and if Arrowhead 140 and Venator are too expensive, realistically were does Babcock/BMT go from here?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The point I was making originally was if RN doesn't like Arrowhead 120 and if Arrowhead 140 and Venator are too expensive, realistically were does Babcock/BMT go from here?
I expect we'll get to know at Euronaval 2018. Leander will be on display in all its glory so unlikely Babcock's won't be bringing their Type 31 offering. Paris Oct 23-26, stand G91.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:I expect we'll get to know at Euronaval 2018. Leander will be on display in all its glory so unlikely Babcock's won't be bringing their Type 31 offering. Paris Oct 23-26, stand G91.
It should be an interesting week with Euronaval between 23-26 Oct followed by the Budget on the 29th Oct and hopefully the results of the MDP shortly thereafter.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:I personally, hope that the Arrowhead 140 re-appears in some guise or other
me, too, as its
Caribbean wrote:size gives flexibility for the future, with lots of space for additional organic and offboard systems
Poiuytrewq wrote:introducing a multipurpose design that meets the T31 requirements and provides a clear pathway for the next phase of the MHC programme
would need a smaller hull, though
Poiuytrewq wrote: if RN doesn't like Arrowhead 120 and if Arrowhead 140 and Venator are too expensive, realistically were does Babcock/BMT go from here?
a good question, let's follow Ron's lead for the answer:
Poiuytrewq wrote: Euronaval between 23-26 Oct followed by the Budget on the 29th Oct and hopefully the results of the MDP shortly thereafter.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Caribbean wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Surely we must be more ambitious than a last generation design like Leander.
Which design are we putting it into? Once a decision is made, we'll be in a position to answer that. I personally, hope that the Arrowhead 140 re-appears in some guise or other, but I won't hold my breath
As indeed do I. Babcock plus OMT are not a bunch of ameuters and if they were confident they could deliver for £250 Mil who are we to doubt? Leander has some merit but for me in this modern era it is just too small and by not having a Merlin hanger rules out so many options for the sake of a couple of feet. Also when I read their brochure, quote 'awesome fire power ' ?? 12 CAMM in those ghastly mushroom things - are they having a laugh? For Leander read a slow Type 21, equally vulnerable and slightly stretched.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Leander on the other hand will never be a C2 or Tier2 Frigate at 117mX14m regardless of how many weapons your strap onto it.
Agreed. It is NOT intended to be C2. Cost says so. Speech even says so. It is NOT a "warfighter".
As an aside, Leander is quoted as requiring a crew of 120. This appears to be the prescibed number even if fitted with very few complex weapons systems in line with the T31 specification. As we have seen with the T26's and QE, quoted crew allocations are subject to change due to experience normally with an upward trend.

What if it turns out that in reality Leander requires 130-140 crew due to increased systems in the future. Is it big enough at 117m X 14m? As a large proportion of the superstructure is taken up with the Mission Bay and Hanger. Where is the margin for future growth?
Crew number is a concern I agree. It will be a place worth investing, if any small more budget is allocated to T31e. As I am NOT a fan of mission bays, I see many reserved space which can be used for accommodation space. I see little problem there. :D
Every other country in the world is building bigger and bigger vessels apart from the UK who is heading towards replacing 1990-2002 era Tier1 Frigates with much smaller long range Corvettes.

Hopefully a better option comes along....
I am more strict (or realistic). T31e is NOT the smallest frigate, it is the largest (and with longest leg) corvette in the world. No irony, I really think so. Again, the cost tells us so. If you could share my standpoint, T31e is a great ship. A corvette overcoming its biggest weak point, range/endurance. I shall never compare it with (proper) frigates around the world, because UK is not paying a frigate cost. It could be an cost effective solution to handle the current RN tasks, which is predominantly low-mid threats, some of which cannot be covered with OPV.

Saying Leander is not a proper frigate is similar to saying Invincible CVS was NOT a super-carrier. Or, preparing a cost for mini cooper and complaining it is not a jaguar. No, it is not. Clear.
Tempest414 wrote:And this is why I said the C2 or tier 2 frigate should and could be funded at 450 to 500 million pounds or half the cost of a tier 1 ship and using proven technology to stay on budget making it a real tier 2 escort that for me would look like ....

135 meters long 19 meters beam
ASW centred with TAS
crew of 110 to 120 + 50 troops short term deployment
BAE - CMS and Artisan radar
1 x 5" gun without auto feeder
4 x 30mm gun
16 cell VLS to allow 32 CAMM plus other weapons
Full width hangar for up to 2 Merlin's
I bet buying more "less armed" T26 will be cheaper and more efficient. One question, when you say 450-500m GBP, is it unit cost or average cost? It differs a lot. T45 unit cost is ~650M, T26 is ~750M, not 1 billion. Their average cost is, yes, 1 billion.
Pongoglo wrote:
Caribbean wrote:Which design are we putting it into? Once a decision is made, we'll be in a position to answer that. I personally, hope that the Arrowhead 140 re-appears in some guise or other, but I won't hold my breath
As indeed do I. Babcock plus OMT are not a bunch of ameuters and if they were confident they could deliver for £250 Mil who are we to doubt?
I doubt them from the beginning. RN "contract" looks like including many many hidden costs. I think Babcock guy was simply thinking about ship building, forgetting all the verifications, naval-standard issues, and "complexity". Babcock has NEVER built a frigate. OMT's only customer is Danish navy, which has a long history of "equipping their ship by their own resource". Very different from UK's.
Leander has some merit but for me in this modern era it is just too small and by not having a Merlin hanger rules out so many options for the sake of a couple of feet. Also when I read their brochure, quote 'awesome fire power ' ?? 12 CAMM in those ghastly mushroom things - are they having a laugh? For Leander read a slow Type 21, equally vulnerable and slightly stretched.
As I stated above, it does have an "good amount of" armaments as a heavy corvette. Again, UK/HMG is only paying a cost for heavy corvette, while trying to get the largest one.

What we must call for is NOT a better design. If we want a proper light frigate, we shall claim for more money. For example, if we cut 5 F35B now, T31 can be a Venator 110. Arrowhead 140 may re-appear, and for sure, Leander is dead. :thumbup:

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31e is NOT the smallest frigate, it is the largest (and with longest leg) corvette in the world. No irony, I really think so.
Leanders range and endurance is impressive but when did RN change its policy to join the Corvette club? If this is a change based on strategic logic why did RN not build modified Khareefs instead of the RB2's? I believe this is a change of policy being forced on RN due to a lack of willingness to commit to a realistic level of defence spending.

I understand the forward basing argument and the suitability of basic vessels such as Leander in this role but where are they likley to be forward based? To replace a T23 in the Gulf with a Leander is to once again cut capability. If the UK was going to forward base 2 Leanders in the Gulf, 2 in Singapore, 2 in Gibraltar, 1 in the Falklands and 1 in the Caribbean and retain 2 in the UK to provide the FRE then maybe I could be convinced but I don't think it's going to happen.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I doubt them from the beginning. RN "contract" looks like including many many hidden costs. I think Babcock guy was simply thinking about ship building, forgetting all the verifications, naval-standard issues, and "complexity". Babcock has NEVER built a frigate. OMT's only customer is Danish navy, which has a long history of "equipping their ship by their own resource". Very different from UK's.
I don't believe Arrowhead 140 can be built in the UK for £250m either. I think it's more of a £350m option and would be very good value at that price point.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:What we must call for is NOT a better design.
I'm not going to stop trying :thumbup:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:If we want a proper light frigate, we shall claim for more money. For example, if we cut 5 F35B now, T31 can be a Venator 110. Arrowhead 140 may re-appear, and for sure, Leander is dead.
If it kills off Leander as a Type 23 replacement then I would be tempted but we need the F35's too.

Happy to wait to see if the Chancellor has found a few quid down the back of the sofa at the end of the month before considering your drastic F35 option.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I will be interested if the Arrowhead 140 is resubmitted and even more are the costings. The Iver Huitfeldts cost $350m or £266m each without weapon systems, though most of these were provided using Stanflex modules the Dames already had.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Ron5 wrote:To be even clearer, the Zumwalts were cancelled after thee ships because of their horrific price tag for a niche role. Zippo to do with tumblehome.
Aren't you guys bringing it back for the cruiser programme?
Ron5 wrote:I'm not sure the Arrowhead 140 is particularly adventurous. It's most daring feature is the claim it can be designed and built for 250m. At 7k tons, thats a lot of ship.
It isn't adventurous, its an in service frigate with no novel features.

Going by past examples it does sound like a lot of ship for the money, but I do have a little bit of hope. The Polar ship is a 130m 15k tonne ship being built in the UK for £150m, and built to reasonable polar standards. Based on that, and accepting some corner cutting on standards maybe it is possible?
Caribbean wrote:As of July, Leonardo were actively developing both the Hero and Solo (which has been landed on an Italian Navy ship - the RN are supposed to be performing shipboard trials of Hero this year, as well)
Have you got a source please? Last I heard it was an unfunded RN project, and we know what tends to happen to them!
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

@LJ, that's at today's exchange rate, though - when built, the exchange rate was around $1-61 - 1.62, so c £215m. Inflation would probably add about 20-25% to that, however, so you aren't too far out. Be interesting to see if modern fabrication can shave anything off that. Even 10% would bring it under the £250m sticker cost AND, as others have pointed out, Babcocks may well have done a bit of work on costings - they are a pretty successful company, after all.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SKB wrote:No fantasy ships here please.
No more boring tweets about flying rats being sent to Devon please

P.s Please stop doing admins job

Post Reply